An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA05-633


Filed: 17 January 2006


         v.                         Beaufort County
                                 Nos. 02 CRS 538, 3610
ANTONIO ULYSSES MCCARTER                    

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 8 November 2004 by Judge Quentin Sumner in Beaufort County Superior Court. Heard in Court of Appeals 9 January 2006.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Kathryn Jones Cooper, for the State.

    Geoffrey W. Hosford for defendant appellant.

    McCULLOUGH, Judge.

    On 20 February 2004, defendant pled guilty to forty-two counts of obtaining property through false pretenses. Defendant's sentences were suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation for thirty-six months.
    On 7 September 2004, probation violation reports were filed alleging that defendant had failed to comply with the terms of his probation. Specifically, the reports alleged that defendant had admitted to using marijuana, failed to comply with the monetary conditions of his probation, had not completed any of his court ordered community service, and violated curfew. On 16 September 2004, additional probation violation reports were filed alleging that defendant had failed to contact his probation officer and hadbeen terminated from a counseling program due to repeated absences.
    On 8 November 2004, a probation violation hearing was held in Beaufort County Superior Court. Defendant admitted the allegations in the probation violation report, but denied the violations were willful. Defendant testified that he was working and was attempting to pay his monetary obligations, but he had some financial hardship because he was supporting himself, his two children, his sister and her child. Defendant also explained that he missed office visits because he had four different probation officers in eight months, and there was some confusion concerning his scheduled appointments. The trial court found that defendant had willfully violated the terms of his probation without lawful excuse, and, accordingly, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and activated his suspended sentences. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's ruling that he violated his probation.
    After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of the parties, we find no error. This Court has stated:
        Any violation of a valid condition of probation is sufficient to revoke defendant's probation. All that is required to revoke probation is evidence satisfying the trial court in its discretion that the defendant violated a valid condition of probation without lawful excuse. The burden is on defendant to present competent evidence of his inability to comply with the conditions of probation; and that otherwise, evidence of defendant's failure to comply may justify a finding that defendant's failure to comply was wilful or without lawful excuse.

State v. Tozzi, 84 N.C. App. 517, 521, 353 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1987)(citations omitted).
    In the case sub judice, it was alleged in the violationreports that defendant admitted smoking marijuana. At the hearing, defendant again admitted that he had smoked marijuana. The defendant has the burden of showing excuse or lack of willfulness and if the defendant fails to carry this burden, evidence of failure to comply is sufficient to support a finding that the violation was willful or without lawful excuse. State v. Crouch, 74 N.C. App. 565, 567, 328 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1985). Defendant offered no explanation or lawful excuse for his use of marijuana. Accordingly, we conclude it was within the trial court's discretion to revoke defendant's probation.
    Because there was sufficient grounds to revoke defendant's probation, consideration of defendant's remaining probation violations are moot.
    No error.
    Judges TYSON and ELMORE concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***